Vigilance department cannot deny information of alleged corruption, human rights violations under RTI Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court on Monday held that a notification issued by the State government preventing disclosure of information concerning the General Administration (Vigilance) Department even when it pertained to allegations of corruption and human rights violations would be contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and would, thus, be unsustainable in law [Subash Mohapatra v State of Odisha]..A bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice RK Pattanaik passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against a notification providing that nothing contained in the RTI Act would apply to the Vigilance Department of the Government of Odisha and its organisation.“If under the RTI Act disclosure is the norm, and non-disclosure the exception, then the impugned notification seeks to take away what is provided by the RTI Act and is therefore ultra vires the RTI Act,” the bench held..The notification under challenge was issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act which empowers the State government to specify "such intelligence and security organisations," to which the RTI Act would not apply..The petitioners had primarily challenged the notification on the ground that it was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees to all Indian citizens the fundamental right to information.It was contended that the State intended to keep away from disclosure to the public, instances of corruption and human right violations..The respondents, on the other hand, said that premature disclosure of the information, especially file notings, prior to a final decision being taken in disciplinary action, had the potential to disrupt the proceedings.It was further argued that revealing confidential information under the RTI Act to an individual, an organization or even an aggrieved person at any stage would impede the entire process of an enquiry into corruption..The Court after examining the issue, drew attention to the first proviso of Section 24 which specifically states that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations were not to be excluded under Section 24(4).“Plainly the legislative intent is to provide information, and not to withhold it, particularly when it pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations,” the Court explained..In any case, the provision provided a second layer of protection to the public servant, the Court pointed out. It was highlighted that information sought in respect of allegations regarding human rights violations would be provided only after the approval of the State Information Commission.“Therefore, it is not as if such information would be straightway made available to a person seeking such information,” the Court observed..With this, it was concluded that the exclusion of the entire Vigilance Department ran counter to the provisions of the RTI Act..Therefore, it was held that information regarding corruption, human rights violations and information that did not touch on any of the sensitive, confidential activities undertaken by the Vigilance Department could not be withheld..In this regard, the bench directed the government to issue a clarificatory notification within four weeks..Advocate SP Das appeared for the petitioners while the respondents were represented by Additional Standing Counsel SN Das and Senior Standing Counsel Srimanta Das..[Read Judgment]